CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 20 April 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45483/13 Bogomir JELEN and Helena RIFELJ against Slovenia lodged on 10 July 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Bogomir Jelen and Ms Helena Rifelj, are Slovenian nationals, who were born in 1946 and 1953 respectively and live in Grosuplje. They are represented before the Court by Mr   K.   Plauštajner, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 14 March 2005 the applicants concluded a purchase contract with company X for a flat which included the parking space no. 14. On 6   April 2005 the flat in question was handed over to the applicants. After paying the purchase price the applicants requested the originals of the purchase contract. Company X informed the applicants that it had sold parking space no.   14 to another individual. Therefore, it offered the applicants another parking space and a compensation of 500 euros (EUR). The applicants refused the offer on the ground that the new parking space was smaller and its location made it difficult to park. On 29 August 2005 the applicants brought civil proceedings against company X, requesting the following documents to be handed to them (a)   the originals of the purchase contract; (b) a notarised original annex to the purchase contract, according to which they could register their property right with the Land Registry over the flat and parking space no.   14; and (c)   a notarised document according to which they could delete any lien concerning the above property. The applicants fixed the amount in dispute at 2,500,000 tolars (SIT) (approximately EUR   10,432.31). On an unspecified date the defendant company lodged a counterclaim requesting that the applicants sign a modified purchase contract for parking space no. 9. On 19 December 2005 the court invited the defendant company to fix the amount in dispute. On 23   December 2005 the defendant company fixed the amount in dispute at SIT 2,500,000. On 13 April 2006 the Ljubljana District Court upheld the applicants’ claim. On 21   February   2007, upon the defendant company’s appeal, the Ljubljana Higher Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remanded the case for re-examination. On 13 May 2008 the District Court issued an interim judgment partly upholding the applicants’ claims (a) and (b) concerning the flat whereas it left open the question of ownership over parking space no.   14. The court dismissed claim (c), finding that the property at issue had not been subject to any lien. At the oral hearing of 15 May 2008 the applicants modified their remaining claims (a) and (b) concerning the parking space no. 14 by requesting only a declaration that they had purchased it. On the same day the District Court upheld the applicants’ claim and it dismissed the defendant company’s counterclaim. The defendant company appealed. On 3 December 2008 the Higher Court quashed the first-instance judgment and dismissed the applicants’ request for a declaration. On 12 January 2009 the applicants lodged a motion to grant leave to appeal on points of law. They fixed the amount in dispute at EUR   10,432.31. On 19 January 2009 the applicants further lodged an appeal on points of law, fixing again the amount in dispute at EUR   10,432.31. On 13 September 2012 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible for failure to fix the amount in dispute. The Supreme Court pointed out that the applicants had modified their claim seeking the issue of a declaratory judgment without indicating the value of the new claim. The amount in dispute as indicated in the action which did not include the claim for a declaratory judgment could not be taken into account. The Supreme Court further observed that the applicants had, initially, fixed an unidentified total amount in dispute of SIT   2,500,000 (EUR 10,432.32) with regard to several claims contrary to Section 41 of the Civil Procedure Act which required the specification of the value of each claim. The applicants’ appeal on points of law would, therefore, have been inadmissible even with regard to their initial claims. The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint. On 24 January 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint, finding that it did not concern an important constitutional question or entail a violation of human rights which would have serious consequences for the applicant. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act (Official Gazette no.   3/07, with a further amendment passed on 9 May 2008, Official Gazette no. 45/08) state: Definition of Amount in Dispute Section 39 “If the ... right to appeal on points of law ... is made to depend upon the amount in dispute, such amount shall be defined as the value of the principal claim. ...” Section 41 “In actions containing several claims of the same plaintiff against the same defendant which are based upon the same factual and legal backgrounds, the jurisdiction shall be determined according to the sum of the values of all claims. If the claims are based upon different factual and legal backgrounds the jurisdiction shall be determined according to the value of each separate claim.” Section 44 “If in the action raising a non-pecuniary claim the plaintiff declares his willingness to accept a certain sum of money in lieu of satisfying the claim, such sum shall be considered as the amount in dispute. In other non-pecuniary claims, the amount in dispute shall be defined as the amount fixed by the plaintiff in the action. If, in the case referred to in the second paragraph of the present Section, the amount in dispute fixed in the action is evidently too high or too low, thereby putting into question the ... right to appeal on points of law, the court shall, not later than upon the main hearing and even before examining the merits, examine the correctness of the fixed amount in an expeditious and appropriate manner. The court decree upon the correctness of the determination of the amount in dispute shall be issued immediately and shall not be appealable against.” Article 45 “In the non-pecuniary claims where the ... right to appeal on points of law depend[s] on the amount in dispute which the plaintiff has failed to fix, the court shall act pursuant to Article 108 hereof governing the proceedings with incomplete pleadings.” Section 108 “If pleadings are unclear or do not contain all of the information necessary for proceeding with the case, the court shall request the person submitting the pleadings to amend or perfect them. ...” Chapter 26 – Extraordinary legal remedies Section 367 “... An appeal on points of law shall be permitted if the value of the subject of the part of the final judgment which is in issue exceeds EUR 40,000 (statutorily permitted appeal). If an appeal on points of law is not permitted under the provisions of the preceding subsection, it may only be lodged if leave to appeal is granted by the court ...” COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about being deprived of access to the Supreme Court. In the applicants’ view the first-instance court had to instruct them to specify the new amount in dispute in accordance with Sections 44 and 45 of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicants maintain that they were treated less favourably than the defendant company who was asked to fix the amount in dispute when lodging its counterclaim. The applicants further maintain that it was unfair to calculate the court fees taking into account the originally specified amount in dispute, while the Supreme Court did not take into account the same amount for the purpose of examining their appeal on points of law. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Were the applicants deprived of access to the Supreme Court, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, due to a restrictive interpretation of the Civil Procedure Act’s provisions on the admissibility of an appeal on points law, in particular of those concerning the obligation to fix the amount in dispute?